Does God Have Free Will?

Moral Orel · Jul 29, 2015

zippy2006 said:
I am just saying that God didn't need to create. There wasn't some lack in God that creation fulfilled. Creation is good, but not necessary. Thus God's act of creation is an example of a free act.

That's true, we didn't fulfill some need of God, but that doesn't mean that he didn't need to create us. There are more reasons to do something than just a need that has to be fulfilled. You would agree that God created everything out of grace right? Like, "here's a bunch of awesome stuff for you humans I thought you might like". Now just because he didn't have a need that had to be fulfilled doesn't mean that his nature doesn't dictate that he will do good things and that he will create because he is creative by nature.

I think a lot to myself. I have a job that doesn't require a lot of thinking to perform, so my mind is free to wonder and wander all day. I don't think to myself because if I don't I will feel bad, I just do because that is my nature. I'm no super-genius, and a lot my thoughts are stupid, and terrible, and unfunny, and pointless, but every once in a while I think of something clever. Either way, whether it is productive or not, it isn't my nature to sit around with an empty head. It is just something that I do because it is who I am and I don't have a choice. I may have a choice as to what I think about, but I can't not think and ponder (double negative totally intentional).

Moral Orel · Jul 29, 2015

aiki said:
Um, there was no one but God when the universe did not exist, so there was no obligation pressing upon God to make the circumstance of someone else better. As I said, God made the universe perfectly freely, under no compulsion to fulfill any need or obligation.

Contentment is a feeling, an experience, unique to humans. Therefore, if one does not exist, one cannot be content; contentment necessitates existence.

Selah.

You keep using words like "obligation" and "owe" and "responsibility" that I never used. I never said God owes it to us to create us. In my analogy the lottery winner doesn't have an obligation to the people he would give money to. He would do so out of grace, and isn't that what God's creation is to us? Grace? Giving us things we don't deserve and haven't earned? Just because I am saying that God's nature of goodness and love would compel him to create doesn't say anything about us causing him to create us.

You can pick apart my analogies as much as you like and point out how different they are from what they represent in a superficial sense, but those things aren't the point of them and the point is still illustrated.

If you have the opportunity and ability to do something good, then you should do that thing.
If you don't do things that you should, then you are being bad.
Even if no harm comes from your inaction, you should still act to do good.

Is there something wrong with those statements?

Moral Orel · Jul 29, 2015

elopez said:
The first argument isn't the only one for determinism, and like we agree, it is weak. There are other more sound arguments. Determinism is true in a theological sense as God created the world, which set off a causal chain of events, and again as God has foreknowledge, since what He knows about the future is necessarily going to happen. So if you believe in a creator God who is omniscient, determinism is rather hard to deny.

What do you mean "hangs on"? Do you believe God is omniscient? God knows He is going to create! There is not a time when God lacks that knowledge. As cited previously, God is not subject to time, and more to the point, God has eternal knowledge of everything.

I posit it to be true in the two ways I referred to.

We aren't talking about "simply predicting" though. We are talking about God's infallible foreknowledge of all of creation. That isn't so straightforward and it's more profound than a prediction. By God having foreknowledge it is not as if said knowledge is "controlling" anyone, indeed, this was something I mentioned in my first post. What this knowledge does mean is the logical certainty necessitates the actuality of the event. If God foreknows x, x is going to happen. Y cannot happen and nor can z in replace of y. If x is me eating a steak at a restaurant this evening, that proposition was true hundreds (to say the least) of years ago. This does not, as you say, make my choice to eat the steak any less of a choice, which gets into the whole compatibilist view I brought up in the last post.

You're right about all this. I had never really thought about blaming him for the butterfly effect of some action he did in the past and how it controls my actions in the future. I guess I only ever thought about how he set up a situation, but I make the choices in that situation anyways.

elopez said:
Oh yeah? I missed it.

Good, cause it wasn't so bright.

Moral Orel · Jul 29, 2015

Crowns&Laurels said:
God is not, by principle, wish-washy. Free will has no meaning to an omnipotent being.

You don't have to be "wishy-washy" to have free will though. You don't have to mull over a decision to make one. You can make a snap decision, or you can choose something at random. There are a lot of different ways to make a selection from a number of options, and that's all "choice" is. And all free will is, is being able to make a choice. If you don't have options to choose from, then you don't have free will. You can phrase that "it doesn't apply" but "doesn't apply" is really the same as "doesn't have" in this case, as well as many others.

Dialogist · Jul 30, 2015

Nicholas Deka said:
Why not? The Bible does. If we didn't anthropomorphize God at all we would have no way of interacting with him in any way at all. He has to have a voice to hear him, he has to speak a language for us to write it down, etc...

Perhaps my choice of words was poor. In fact, Christ is the perfect anthropomorphism, isn't He?

I think what I was feeling is that rational searching into the exact nature of God, aided by analogies we fabricate with ourselves, is a useless distraction. Consider how Gregory of Nyssa explains it:

If someone is making a journey in the middle of the day, when the sun with its hot rays scorches the head and by its heat dries up everything liquid in the body, and under one’s feet is the hard earth which is difficult for walking and waterless; and then such a man encounters a spring with splendid, transparent, pleasing and refreshing streams pouring out abundantly — will he sit down by the water and begin to reason about its nature, seeking out from whence it comes, how, from what, and all such things which idle speakers are wont to judge about, for example: is it a certain moisture which exists in the depths of the earth that comes to the surface under pressure and becomes water, or is it canals going through long desert places that discharge water as soon as they find an opening for themselves? Will he not rather, saying farewell to all rational deliberations, bend down his head to the stream and press his lips to it, quench his thirst, refresh his tongue, satisfy his desire, and give thanks to the One Who gave this Grace? Therefore, let you also imitate this thirsting one

elopez · Jul 30, 2015

Nicholas Deka said:
You're right about all this. I had never really thought about blaming him for the butterfly effect of some action he did in the past and how it controls my actions in the future. I guess I only ever thought about how he set up a situation, but I make the choices in that situation anyways.

Indeed determinism is true. It is not that we are morally blaming God, yet His initial act of creation started that causal chain of events that eventually got us here today. His knowledge of all creation necessitates that it happen. We still have the choice as what God foreknows of is ultimately our desires and reasons for acting. We are still responsible for our choices regardless if God knows them.

Nicholas Deka said:
Good, cause it wasn't so bright.

I'm slightly curious now. Don't be so harsh lol.

aiki · Jul 30, 2015

Nicholas Deka said:
You keep using words like "obligation" and "owe" and "responsibility" that I never used. I never said God owes it to us to create us. In my analogy the lottery winner doesn't have an obligation to the people he would give money to. He would do so out of grace, and isn't that what God's creation is to us? Grace? Giving us things we don't deserve and haven't earned?

But, you see, God's creation isn't about us; it's all about Him. His act of creation wasn't an act of grace but a gratuitous exercise/display of His character, wisdom and power. And I would also suggest that you are at least implying that God's grace obliges Him to act in a gracious way: If God is gracious, then He must act graciously. This certainly seems to me what you are trying very hard to avoid saying but end up saying anyway.

Nicholas Deka said:
If you have the opportunity and ability to do something good, then you should do that thing.
If you don't do things that you should, then you are being bad.
Even if no harm comes from your inaction, you should still act to do good.

Is there something wrong with those statements?

Well, yes, actually, there is: You have just made statements that describe an obligation (implicit in the word "should"), to which you were stridently objecting at the beginning of your post.

Selah.

Moral Orel · Jul 30, 2015

aiki said:
Well, yes, actually, there is: You have just made statements that describe an obligation (implicit in the word "should"), to which you were stridently objecting at the beginning of your post.

What I said was that he wasn't obligated to us. You're right that I am saying he is obligated. But only to the moral code of his own nature. He isn't obligated to us, he is obligated to the moral of doing good.

aiki said:
If God is gracious, then He must act graciously. This certainly seems to me what you are trying very hard to avoid saying but end up saying anyway.

I'm not trying to avoid it. I'm just stating more generally that if God is good, then he must act good. Grace comes along with good but so does a lot of stuff. I'm being more general to allow for more than just grace. That's kind of been the whole point from the beginning.

aiki said:
His act of creation wasn't an act of grace but a gratuitous exercise/display of His character, wisdom and power.

"Grace" and "Gratuitous" are really, really close to each other in meaning. Care to rephrase that?

Katallina · Jul 30, 2015

Nicholas Deka said:
I'm not sure how to respond to this since it is a lot about our free will, but not God's. It isn't that I disagree with you, I'm just not sure how to respond. But I also didn't want you to think that I didn't read it or that I am ignoring you.

Hi there!

The reason I chose to tackle it from the angle of whether we have free will is because within the context and constraints that you were trying to judge by, whether we have free will would ultimately be the extent to which God has free will. What my point ended up being is that yes, God absolutely has free will. We see him doing things like deliberately hardening the heart of Pharoah in the Book of Exodus so that he would need to do things in Egypt; things he deliberately did to ensure the Israelites would believe. He also needed free will to create the world, and to have the authority to send Jesus here to save us from sin.

In contrast, the reason why it can sometimes look like God has no free will is that there are certain things that God (so far as I can tell) does not stand for... And having human beings be a bunch of mindless puppets who automatically obey him is one of those. If God wants to be chosen by / through Love, then He cannot operate out of oppression or fear. He knew this from the beginning, but gave the Israelites the Law long enough that he would be able to have a hand over them (as much as possible) to protect them while he worked to prepare the world for Jesus.

The gift of Jesus is the ultimate expression of God's love for us (and again, if God loves us than God must have free will to do that; Love has to be a choice.) In short:

1. God wants to love us, but by His very makeup he and sin cannot peacefully co-exist (Do we lack free will because we require breath?)

2. God wants to help us, but in order to love us he had to ensure we would have the choice to accept or refuse that love. (Our free will comes as part of God having free will to choose free will as a quality for us to possess; also--there are many Christians who would politely disagree that we have free will and who would think I am living under a delusion, but for the sake of my own stance I believe we do have it. That all seems to hinge on the part of Romans I quoted earlier. Just wanted to avoid confusion and cover both angles.)

3. So much like we each have free will and much of our lives involve balancing our own will with and against that of others, God is in much the same position. Could he snap his fingers and make all of us renounce everything he considers evil in a heartbeat? I think so. But that would defeat our reason, our quest while here--which is to discover and fall madly in love with Him.

I didn't bring any new scripture in this time, but rather tried to expand on what I was saying with the pieces in my original post. I hope this is helpful to you.

I may or may not be the best person to try and assist: I am very interested in studying my faith from an academic standpoint, but I will be the first to admit that I act upon it from a very passionate and emotionally driven (God=Love) viewpoint. If nothing else, hopefully I've given you something to think about.

Have a great day!

aiki · Jul 30, 2015

Nicholas Deka said:
What I said was that he wasn't obligated to us. You're right that I am saying he is obligated. But only to the moral code of his own nature. He isn't obligated to us, he is obligated to the moral of doing good.

But God's act of creating the universe was not forced or compelled by His nature. He freely chose to create the universe. And we know this because it was a completely gratuitous exercise of His power. God experienced perfectly within the Trinity all the perfections of His nature and did not therefore need to create the universe. But if God did not need to create the universe, if there was nothing compelling His act of creation, then it was a free act of His will to bring the universe into being.

There was nothing intrinsically moral in God's creation of the universe (though, there was nothing immoral about His creating it, either). That is, God's choice to create did not satisfy some moral demand - at least as far as I can see. Is an artist satisfying some moral code when he paints a landscape or basket of fruit? I don't think so. And neither was God when He "painted" the universe.

Nicholas Deka said:
"Grace" and "Gratuitous" are really, really close to each other in meaning. Care to rephrase that?

I'm using the term "gratuitous" to mean "unwarranted" or "lacking justification." In this sense, it is not as close to "grace" as it might otherwise be, in which case, a rephrasing isn't necessary.

Selah.

Moral Orel · Jul 31, 2015

aiki said:
There was nothing intrinsically moral in God's creation of the universe (though, there was nothing immoral about His creating it, either). That is, God's choice to create did not satisfy some moral demand - at least as far as I can see. Is an artist satisfying some moral code when he paints a landscape or basket of fruit? I don't think so. And neither was God when He "painted" the universe.

So you're saying the creation of the universe is a neutral thing? And not a morally good thing? Are we not better off existing than we would be not existing? Is there anything that God has done that was not out of kindness? If it was out of kindness, does that not make it a morally good act?

Moral Orel · Jul 31, 2015

Katallina said:
The gift of Jesus is the ultimate expression of God's love for us (and again, if God loves us than God must have free will to do that; Love has to be a choice.

Ahh, but here is the clincher. Is God capable of hating even one human being? If God is love, then is he capable of hating someone. He hates sin, sure, but no harm can ever come from that because sin can't feel pain. Him hating sin makes us feel more loved, so it is a good thing to hate that concept. But is he capable of hating a person? I think not. Hating a person would be a sin. God is incapable of sin, and allow me to prove it.

God is righteous. <--- Biblical fact
If God sinned, he would no longer be righteous.
God cannot change. <--- Biblical fact
God cannot change from righteous to unrighteous.
God cannot sin.

Now we can both find a million verses to support the two key points I pointed out as fact, do you see how this proves God is incapable of ever choosing to sin? So now the question is what is it to sin? Is hating a person a sin? I think so. I also think not doing all the good you capable of is a sin, and that seems to be a point of contention around here. What do you think about all this?

aiki · Jul 31, 2015

Nicholas Deka said:
So you're saying the creation of the universe is a neutral thing? And not a morally good thing? Are we not better off existing than we would be not existing? Is there anything that God has done that was not out of kindness? If it was out of kindness, does that not make it a morally good act?

Are we better off existing than not? "Better off" describes a state of being. There is no "better off" when one does not exist; for if one does not exist, one has no being. Necessarily, then, we are better off when existing than when we do not exist. But this is a matter of the nature of existence versus non-existence; it is not really a moral question.

Does an artist paint a bowl of fruit out of kindness? Not necessarily. We may look at his painting and think it wonderful and out of a sense of gratefulness ascribe to the artist a motive of kindness in painting the bowl of fruit, but he may just as easily have done it because he had nothing better to do, or because he felt he needed some practice painting, or he simply thought the bowl of fruit was worth painting, etc, etc. In the same way, God did not decide upon the creation necessarily because He was thinking to be kind to us. It is His nature to be kind, to be sure, and this is inevitably reflected in the nature of what He makes, but the fundamental motive for God's creation of the universe was a gratuitous display of His unparalleled power and glorious attributes. As such, it was a free act, not compelled by any particular need or imperative.

Selah.

Hawkins · Jul 31, 2015

Nicholas Deka said:
Ahh, but here is the clincher. Is God capable of hating even one human being? If God is love, then is he capable of hating someone. He hates sin, sure, but no harm can ever come from that because sin can't feel pain. Him hating sin makes us feel more loved, so it is a good thing to hate that concept. But is he capable of hating a person? I think not. Hating a person would be a sin. God is incapable of sin, and allow me to prove it.

God is righteous. <--- Biblical fact
If God sinned, he would no longer be righteous.
God cannot change. <--- Biblical fact
God cannot change from righteous to unrighteous.
God cannot sin.

Now we can both find a million verses to support the two key points I pointed out as fact, do you see how this proves God is incapable of ever choosing to sin? So now the question is what is it to sin? Is hating a person a sin? I think so. I also think not doing all the good you capable of is a sin, and that seems to be a point of contention around here. What do you think about all this?

God is omnipotent, which means He can do whatever He wishes. However, He never wishes to sin.

Our thinking is always limited by our conception of time. God is out side such a limit. We don't have a concept of what beings will be outside the boundary of time. We humans don't (and can't) have such a conception. This limits our understanding of the nature of God fully.

For an example,

God knows what his actions are going to be before he does them.

With this statement you already applied the conception of time to God. If the factor 'time' is taken out of this sentence, then there is no "before" there is no "after".

Moral Orel · Jul 31, 2015

Hawkins said:
God is omnipotent, which means He can do whatever He wishes. However, He never wishes to sin.

So you believe that because God is omnipotent, and therefore can do anything, that he is capable of making himself not exist? Or that he is capable of hating other members of the trinity? Or hating himself? These are just the things that I believe most Christians view as impossible for God. There are also things that God can't do because of his other qualities. For instance, God can't learn something because he already knows everything.

Moral Orel · Jul 31, 2015

Hawkins said:
For an example,

God knows what his actions are going to be before he does them.

With this statement you already applied the conception of time to God. If the factor 'time' is taken out of this sentence, then there is no "before" there is no "after".

But it is the very fact that you take time out of the equation that supports my point. God is eternal. He has no beginning and no end. God is righteous, so God being righteous is eternal. If sin is ever a part of God, then he would not be righteous. Therefore sin cannot ever be a part of God.

Moral Orel · Jul 31, 2015

aiki said:
Does an artist paint a bowl of fruit out of kindness? Not necessarily. We may look at his painting and think it wonderful and out of a sense of gratefulness ascribe to the artist a motive of kindness in painting the bowl of fruit, but he may just as easily have done it because he had nothing better to do, or because he felt he needed some practice painting, or he simply thought the bowl of fruit was worth painting, etc, etc.

It's more complicated than that. How does the painting feel about existing? I know the Bible talks about us being nothing more than pots and jars, but it also talks about us being children in the eyes of God, so there has to be more to our feelings and what being created does to them.

aiki said:
In the same way, God did not decide upon the creation necessarily because He was thinking to be kind to us.

Maybe, maybe not. Do you believe God loves us eternally or is it an everlasting love? If he loves us eternally, then he loves us even outside of our own existence. Outside of our own existence we are still a "thought" in God's head. So, in that light, God creating us for his pleasure would mean that it pleases him to do good things because he is righteous, and it pleases him to love as many persons as possible. It still doesn't mean that he needs us to love him back, just that he needs to love us. There's a profound difference between those two things, and I want to make sure it's clear that I am not advocating the former.

aiki said:
It is His nature to be kind, to be sure, and this is inevitably reflected in the nature of what He makes, but the fundamental motive for God's creation of the universe was a gratuitous display of His unparalleled power and glorious attributes. As such, it was a free act, not compelled by any particular need or imperative.

I know the verse about his creation of the universe being for his pleasure, but can you link me the verse about it being just for his glory? I always thought the purpose behind creation was kind of vague, but I don't know if I just haven't heard as many verses about it as there are.

oi_antz · Jul 31, 2015

Nicholas Deka said:
so there is one and only one action that he will ever take.

This seems to be wrong. It calls to mind that expression "there is more than one way to skin a cat". God is well known for abstract, wonderful and bizarre solutions. I am sure that creativity should factor somehow. Often there is more than one good option. I like the way you are thinking, I have liked two of your posts in this thread. I hesitated though, since you said a scripture described us as nothing more than clay pots, your words "nothing more" was a saddening exaggeration, but you did correct that immediately. Thanks

aiki · Aug 1, 2015

Nicholas Deka said:
It's more complicated than that. How does the painting feel about existing? I know the Bible talks about us being nothing more than pots and jars, but it also talks about us being children in the eyes of God, so there has to be more to our feelings and what being created does to them.

I intended no other point in my analogy than the one I drew from it. I wanted only to make an observation about the motives for a creative act.

Only those who are born-again are God's children. All others are merely His creatures - actually, His enemies is how the Bible describes the unregenerate sinner.

Scripture is very clear that our feelings are not of major importance to God in His pursuit of His goals in the world. See the Book of Job. If it serves His purposes better, He will sacrifice us on the altar of His will rather than avoid causing us hurt. It's an uncomfortable thought but certainly the thoroughly-justified prerogative of the One who created and sustains everything.

Nicholas Deka said:
Maybe, maybe not. Do you believe God loves us eternally or is it an everlasting love? If he loves us eternally, then he loves us even outside of our own existence. Outside of our own existence we are still a "thought" in God's head. So, in that light, God creating us for his pleasure would mean that it pleases him to do good things because he is righteous, and it pleases him to love as many persons as possible. It still doesn't mean that he needs us to love him back, just that he needs to love us. There's a profound difference between those two things, and I want to make sure it's clear that I am not advocating the former.

I start feeling uncomfortable talking about aspects of God's mind that I can't possibly comprehend. How exactly God perceived and regarded me before I existed is a discussion that ventures into a realm that is largely obscured to human understanding. I am not at all sure that a thought in God's mind is anything like a thought in my own. In fact, I think Scripture gives me cause to think my thoughts and God's are vastly different. So, I am very reluctant to go too far in anthropomorphizing my Creator.

I don't know that it pleases God more to love many rather than a few. I think what is more important to God is the quality or character of love rather than its quantity. It is very human to think more of a good thing is better, but this hasn't always been my experience.

If God needs anything, He is not God. God, by definition, is perfect, which necessarily entails needing nothing. As soon as you start talking about God needing something ("he needs to love us"), you aren't talking about the Christian, biblical conception of God. God, then, did not create us in order to satisfy a need He had. His aseity precludes such a possibility.

Nicholas Deka said:
I know the verse about his creation of the universe being for his pleasure, but can you link me the verse about it being just for his glory? I always thought the purpose behind creation was kind of vague, but I don't know if I just haven't heard as many verses about it as there are.

I didn't actually say that the creation of the universe was "just for God's glory." I can't think of any verse in Scripture that explicitly says so, either. Certainly, God's glorification is fundamental to His creation of the universe, but it is not "just" for His glory that it exists. What I did say was,

"...the fundamental motive for God's creation of the universe was a gratuitous display of His unparalleled power and glorious attributes."

Selah.

Moral Orel · Aug 2, 2015

aiki said:
I didn't actually say that the creation of the universe was "just for God's glory." I can't think of any verse in Scripture that explicitly says so, either. Certainly, God's glorification is fundamental to His creation of the universe, but it is not "just" for His glory that it exists. What I did say was,

"...the fundamental motive for God's creation of the universe was a gratuitous display of His unparalleled power and glorious attributes."

I know you didn't say that it was the only reason, but it would need to be the only reason to prove my argument wrong that God's actions are dictated by his nature of goodness. His nature can be creative too, or any number of other things (except evil of course) but my argument is about the goodness of his nature and how that affects what decisions he might make. You can add more dimensions to what might affect his choices, but you need to somehow take away the good nature's effect on whether he creates or not. It seems like creating us was a morally good thing though, since you admit we are better off.

aiki said:
If God needs anything, He is not God. God, by definition, is perfect, which necessarily entails needing nothing. As soon as you start talking about God needing something ("he needs to love us"), you aren't talking about the Christian, biblical conception of God. God, then, did not create us in order to satisfy a need He had. His aseity precludes such a possibility.

Maybe "need" is the wrong word. I can't think of a better one that isn't going to cause a disagreement though. Let's look at something we do agree on. God cannot lie. So it could be phrased "God needs to tell the truth". Now you would have a problem with that, or if I used a word like "compelled" or anything of that nature. So what word can we use instead of "need"? It has to be stronger than "want" though because then it would be possible for him to lie.

aiki said:
Only those who are born-again are God's children. All others are merely His creatures - actually, His enemies is how the Bible describes the unregenerate sinner.

God Loves All Humans Here's a link to an article that talks about all the reasons we should likely believe that God loves everybody. It isn't the article that made me think so, I had to look it up just now. I always got the impression that God was supposed to love everybody, but I suppose the Bible doesn't explicitly state it. Basically the article talks about how Jesus loves everyone (even his enemies), we are supposed to love everyone (even our enemies), and so God must love them too (particularly because Jesus was God). So I'm still pretty sure God loves everyone, even if they are his enemy. And he wouldn't want to do harm to people he loves unless it was ultimately a morally good decision.

aiki said:
Scripture is very clear that our feelings are not of major importance to God in His pursuit of His goals in the world. See the Book of Job. If it serves His purposes better, He will sacrifice us on the altar of His will rather than avoid causing us hurt. It's an uncomfortable thought but certainly the thoroughly-justified prerogative of the One who created and sustains everything.

But what are those purposes, in general? Ultimately, goodness is what I am arguing. Does God cause harm or allow harm sometimes? Of course. But I think the only reason would be for what is ultimately the best possible thing that we couldn't possibly see, at least not at the time. I've read that the story of Job is a story of inspiration for lots of people that are going through tough times. So it would seem that it served a purpose of being better for us than if God hadn't let all that happen to him.

I think that when we witness things in the Bible of terrible things happening, it is only more evidence that if God could have accomplished his plan with something nicer, he would have. In order for his plan to work, there is no other way for him to accomplish it than by doing things that a being of pure love wouldn't ever choose unless there wasn't a choice. If he did them in a nicer way at the time, it would surely result in much more terrible effects later. Otherwise, why would he? Sometimes when people talk about God's sovereignty, it sounds like God could just do terrible things on a whim, but then he wouldn't be righteous would he?

Like you stated, it was for a purpose, and I think that there is only one best solution for any given problem that leads to that purpose. If you consider the butterfly effect of the things that God did in the Bible on the billions and billions of people that would live in the aftermath of whatever decision it was that he made, is it really possible for there to be more than one totally, equally perfect decision?

Does God Have Free Will?

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Member

Regular Member

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Regular Member

Member

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Opposed to Untruth.

Regular Member

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Similar threads